.
..
...
....
.....
Trinam wrote: If you've ever been in a car with a flat tire needing help and someone told you no, I think we can agree that you would not be thinking that person was anything short of a jerk. Sheer criminality.
*shakes fist*
Trinam wrote: Allow me to paint a scenario then, here.
Your car has a flat tire. Being an average joe with a +0 charisma, you ask fortune for help. Since they are indifferent, as you are just some guy on the street they met just now, the dc would have a base of 10 to get help. Not being under pressure, you take 10. A character with -2 or +0 cha, someone with a 7-11 cha, will go out of their way to help you change that tire.
A sorcerer with a +4 charisma will decline. If you've ever been in a car with a flat tire needing help and someone told you no, I think we can agree that you would not be thinking that person was anything short of a jerk.
This is, then, proof that high charisma makes you a jerk. If that if not a relevant proof of concept, then I submit to the court that your methods of judgment are faulty, and ready an action to rage.
You know he's just going to reply something like "Sorcerer's don't even have 'Profession: Automechanic!'" and we'll be back around the merry-go-round again.
Mergy wrote: Trinam wrote: Allow me to paint a scenario then, here.
Your car has a flat tire. Being an average joe with a +0 charisma, you ask fortune for help. Since they are indifferent, as you are just some guy on the street they met just now, the dc would have a base of 10 to get help. Not being under pressure, you take 10. A character with -2 or +0 cha, someone with a 7-11 cha, will go out of their way to help you change that tire.
A sorcerer with a +4 charisma will decline. If you've ever been in a car with a flat tire needing help and someone told you no, I think we can agree that you would not be thinking that person was anything short of a jerk.
This is, then, proof that high charisma makes you a jerk. If that if not a relevant proof of concept, then I submit to the court that your methods of judgment are faulty, and ready an action to rage.
You know he's just going to reply something like "Sorcerer's don't even have 'Profession: Automechanic!'" and we'll be back around the merry-go-round again. Yes, but then I can prove logic won't work and start using something else. I readied an action for a reason.
Trinam wrote: Allow me to paint a scenario then, here.
Your car has a flat tire. Being an average joe with a +0 charisma, you ask fortune for help. Since they are indifferent, as you are just some guy on the street they met just now, the dc would have a base of 10 to get help. Not being under pressure, you take 10. A character with -2 or +0 cha, someone with a 7-11 cha, will go out of their way to help you change that tire.
A sorcerer with a +4 charisma will decline. If you've ever been in a car with a flat tire needing help and someone told you no, I think we can agree that you would not be thinking that person was anything short of a jerk.
This is, then, proof that high charisma makes you a jerk. If that if not a relevant proof of concept, then I submit to the court that your methods of judgment are faulty, and ready an action to rage.
Still doesn't make any sense. I think it's because you think the sorcerer cares nothing about (and is actually adverse to) having characters think better than mediocre about him.
OK. BARBARIAN TRY BE NICE, AM RAGE NOW.
BARBARIAN AM TRYING LOGIC. BARBARIAN AM HATE LOGIC; AM SQUISHY AND NOT FUN. BARBARIAN AM PREFER DEPLOMACEE WITH LANCE THROUGH FACE OF CASTY-TYPE. INSTEAD AM FORGET LOGIC, 12 WIS AND PERCEPTION AM SHOWING BARBARIAN THERE NO LOGIC HERE. AM +24 PERCEPTION, BARBARIAN KNOW IF THERE. HE AM OBSURVENT.
BARBARIAN AM HAS 7 CHA. BARBARIAN AM HAVE PROBLEM. IF OLD LADY AM TALK TO BARBARIAN FOR AN MINUTE ABOUT HER NOT CROSS STREET FOR SAKE OF CART GOING FAST, BARBARIAN AM COMPULSED TO PICK UP CART AND THROW INTO BUILDING, LET OLD LADY CROSS. BARBARIAN AM HAVING THIS HAPPEN ALL TIME; AM ANNOYING BEING HELPFUL. BARBARIAN AM HAVING TO MAKE RULE:
AT 50 SECONDS OF TALKY, BARBARIAN AM SMASH. ONE MINUTE AM PROBLEM BECAUSE BARBARIAN AM UNABLE TO SAY NO TO SWEET OLD LADY WHO AM NEEDING HELP. AM SMASH MUCH SOONER USUALLY, BARBARIAN AM NOT KNOW HOW COUNT TO 50. AM ONCE SEEING SQUISHY CASTY-TYPE SAY NO TO HELPING LITTLE OLD LADY CROSS ROAD. HIM NOT GOOD PERSON, SAME OLD LADY WHO AM ASKING BARBARIAN.
BARBARIAN AM SQUISH PUNY CASTY; HELP LADY CROSS STREET; THROW MANY CART. ONE CART AM HAVING KING INSIDE. BARBARIAN AM NO LONGER ALLOWED IN BREVOY.
AM OK. LADIES AM BETTER IN VARISIA. RAWR.
I just knew this thread was eventually going to be worth it. :)
I removed a post. Play nice.
I must agree that I have grown to prefer sorcerers to wizards.I love the advantages of spontaneous spellcasting, vs. the more structured wizard class.This freedom gives me a real boost in the role-playing department, as our group is just more heavily into that than just stats and rules and numbers.These are important, but the player character interaction is where it's at for me, I must say.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Phoenixsong wrote: I must agree that I have grown to prefer sorcerers to wizards.I love the advantages of spontaneous spellcasting, vs. the more structured wizard class.This freedom gives me a real boost in the role-playing department, as our group is just more heavily into that than just stats and rules and numbers.These are important, but the player character interaction is where it's at for me, I must say. A sorcerer is no more a roleplaying character than a wizard is. In one sense while the Wizard's spellcasting is more structured, he has more freedom to grow and learn than a Sorcerer does. Player interaction with other wizards, seeking new arcane secrets, and the planning. Those also present roleplaying activities.
In other words, the Sorcerer may be Jean Grey, but the Wizard is Professor X. Neither can be said to lack in roleplaying potential compared to the other.
I think there's a lot of undiscovered potential in sorcerers.
We've got a group of people who were born to their magic, who grew up with that magic going off for whatever reason, who were never taught magical theory as a youth (they may have learned it later), etc.
I think superstition and magical ritual (along the lines of throwing salt over one's shoulder or not stepping on a crack in the sidewalk) would be something a lot of sorcerers have.
Sorcerers have really high charisma, learship ability, etc. They are likely to have a ton of followers following them around and who are learning these magical rituals from the sorcerer. Sorcerers are ideal for being cult leaders (whether the cult is evil, evil, evil or good or silly).
Having said this, Sorcerers are not a better roleplaying class than the Wizard. There's no such thing as "a better roleplaying class". Wizards are good for playing high int characters and sorcerers are good for playing high cha characters.
LazarX wrote: Phoenixsong wrote: I must agree that I have grown to prefer sorcerers to wizards.I love the advantages of spontaneous spellcasting, vs. the more structured wizard class.This freedom gives me a real boost in the role-playing department, as our group is just more heavily into that than just stats and rules and numbers.These are important, but the player character interaction is where it's at for me, I must say. A sorcerer is no more a roleplaying character than a wizard is. In one sense while the Wizard's spellcasting is more structured, he has more freedom to grow and learn than a Sorcerer does. Player interaction with other wizards, seeking new arcane secrets, and the planning. Those also present roleplaying activities.
In other words, the Sorcerer may be Jean Grey, but the Wizard is Professor X. Neither can be said to lack in roleplaying potential compared to the other. LazarX,
I didn't read his post that way. I read that the mechanics of the class give him a boost in role playing. Not that 'Sorcerers Role, Wizards Roll.'
That said, Sorcerer is Jean Grey, Wizard is Tony Stark. :-)
I have played wizards and I enjoyed them very much. My post was not a sorcerers are better than wizards post by any means. It was a statement of preference only. I see no reason to say that a wizard has more room to grow than a sorcerer. How well a character progresses has less to do with the class itself and more with the player, IMO, especially with a GM that likes to challenge his/her players. Like in chemistry, one can take the same elements and, in mixing them in different ways, come up with very different concoctions. Don't you agree ? The point is to be creative and have fun, eh ?
.
..
...
....
.....
Phoenixsong wrote: The point is to be creative and have fun, eh ? Oh you poor delude fool, how I mock thee so.
Question my mocking prowess do you?
HA!
BEHOLDEN:
Commencing mock in..
3
2
1
...
MOCK!1!one!exclamation!1!eleven
*shakes fist*
Trinam is correct. LilithsThrall is dodging the issue and also wrong.
BenignFacist wrote: .
..
...
....
.....
Phoenixsong wrote: The point is to be creative and have fun, eh ? Oh you poor delude fool, how I mock thee so.
Question my mocking prowess do you?
HA!
BEHOLDEN:
Commencing mock in..
3
2
1
...
MOCK!1!one!exclamation!1!eleven
*shakes fist*
First, don't you mean delud-ED ? Secondly, I must have missed your mocking, but your counting is impressive.
.
..
...
....
.....
Phoenixsong wrote:
*delude wimperings*
Never!
The Past Simple tense is for the weak!
*shakes fist*
I've played both Sorcerers and Wizards. I like both, and think that wizards are the more powerful class (at least potentially), but I think I like sorcerers better. Bloodlines are cool (and at low levels, the granted powers are nifty), and I like the whole "you have to study dusty tomes to grasp the simplest of spells, while I...AM...Magic!" aspect. Quite a few of my sorcerers are disdainful of wizards and their grubbing around for spells, feeling that their natural power comes closer to really understanding magic.
Plus a high Cha lends itself to playing haughty ladies who expect others to obey their whims :-)
It's odd, though--in real life I'm much more of a wizard, the hopeless know-it-all who remembers everything she's ever read (or so other people seem to feel.) Maybe that's part of the appeal of sorcerers to me, that and a weakness for clever characters who can use their wits to escape any situation. (I love clever con men like Jim Rockford or the Stainless Steel Rat, the show Leverage, etc.)
====
As to the whole Cha for witches thing, LT has a point--but only if you think of the witches' pact as a negotiation. I guess you could, but that does tend to fly in the face of, oh, let's call it about 2,000 years of folklore and tradition.
The hallmarks of pacts with powerful beings has always been to find a way to manipulate the contract--or to force the other being to accept your offer whatever it would care to do. Summoning a demon to obey your wishes requires knowing the proper ritual, preparing the correct responses, knowing what spells will bind it, etc. These are all Intelligence-based tasks, at least in a Pathfinder game system.
Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts in. (Or in the bitter end, knowing where to hire the best lawyer in New England.)
You don't have to convince the Devil to buy your soul. He's always in the market, it seems. But you do have to know how to find him, and be smart enough to deal with the consequences.
Anyway, YMMV. I would have preferred to see witches use Wisdom because a Wis-based arcane caster would be KEWL and it fits the fluff a bit better.
tortiekat wrote: Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts... It's Bluff and Diplomacy - both of which are charisma based skills.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote: tortiekat wrote: Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts... It's Bluff and Diplomacy - both of which are charisma based skills. Really... just give up on this thread. No one's going anywhere, least of all, LT.
LazarX wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: tortiekat wrote: Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts... It's Bluff and Diplomacy - both of which are charisma based skills. Really... just give up on this thread. No one's going anywhere, least of all, LT. Don't act like I'm the only one sticking to my position here or that I'm doing it more than anyone else. Don't be a hypocrit.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote: LazarX wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: tortiekat wrote: Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts... It's Bluff and Diplomacy - both of which are charisma based skills. Really... just give up on this thread. No one's going anywhere, least of all, LT. Don't act like I'm the only one sticking to my position here or that I'm doing it more than anyone else. Don't be a hypocrit. I'll at least be a speller. Yes you aren't the only one being stubborn, you are however being mono-manically focused on the narrow cone of Charisma as the only factor in making, or getting the better (or worse) of a deal. And what did this discussion came out of... the really spurious claim that because witches make a deal with a patron they're somehow crowding the schtick of sorcerers because deals can only factor on charisma (not!)
LazarX wrote: Yes you aren't the only one being stubborn, you are however being mono-manically focused on the narrow cone of Charisma as the only factor in making, or getting the better (or worse) of a deal. Whereas others are mono-maniacally focused on the narrow cone of Charisma not being the only factor in making or getting the better (or worse) of a deal.
The only difference between myself and others in this thread is that I've felt that my position doesn't need ad hominems to make the point, nor am I fearful of further discussion as some people are (who, like yourself, instead of just dropping out of the thread, feel the need to drop in here repeatedly to assert that all further discussion must stop).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LilithsThrall wrote: Whereas others are mono-maniacally focused on the narrow cone of Charisma not being the only factor in making or getting the better (or worse) of a deal. How can someone be mono-maniacally focused on there being more than one way to accomplish something?
Jason Ellis 350 wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Whereas others are mono-maniacally focused on the narrow cone of Charisma not being the only factor in making or getting the better (or worse) of a deal. How can someone be mono-maniacally focused on there being more than one way to accomplish something?
That's not that difficult to understand. There are two ways of doing something ("Charisma only" and "not Charisma only") and there are people in this thread determinedly focused on one or the other.
Also, it's worth noting that the "not Charisma only" side has been almost entirely "Charisma and Intelligence" (some minor support) or "Intelligence only" (overwhelmingly the majority view), there really hasn't been that much variation in the "not Charisma only" side. "Charisma and Wisdom" and "Wisdom only" have been seriously underrepresented, for example.
AM BARBARIAN wrote: OK. BARBARIAN TRY BE NICE, AM RAGE NOW.
BARBARIAN AM TRYING LOGIC. BARBARIAN AM HATE LOGIC; AM SQUISHY AND NOT FUN. BARBARIAN AM PREFER DEPLOMACEE WITH LANCE THROUGH FACE OF CASTY-TYPE...........
BARBARIAN AM SQUISH PUNY CASTY; HELP LADY CROSS STREET; THROW MANY CART. ONE CART AM HAVING KING INSIDE. BARBARIAN AM NO LONGER ALLOWED IN BREVOY.
AM OK. LADIES AM BETTER IN VARISIA. RAWR.
Dude, I laughed so hard when I read this stuff came out off my nose.
Your post (along with BenignFacist's, wizard fireball rant) is the best post I've read on these boards.
You and he are my 2 favorite posters.
You win this thread.
LilithsThrall wrote: tortiekat wrote: Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts... It's Bluff and Diplomacy - both of which are charisma based skills. You have yet to explain how understanding a contract and exploiting a loophole is a function of bluff or diplomacy, or even charisma in general. Manipulating a set of rules and clauses and manipulating another entity are two entirely different things. If something is bound to a set of rules and your figure out a run around using those set of rules it doesn't matter how charming you are, it must abide.
LilithsThrall wrote: Whereas others are mono-maniacally focused on the narrow cone of Charisma not being the only factor in making or getting the better (or worse) of a deal. I'm more curious about why a Witch has be about getting the better deal. Clerics serve a god and channel their power, and it is their faith and ability to connect with with said god (i.e. wisdom) which determines their power. Most likely because gods are more interested in dedicated and skilled representatives than they are in getting their butts kissed. And why shouldn't the unknown entities that empower witches feel similarly?
The 3.5 warlock, which shares a lot of flavour with the witch, made pacts with fiends (or fey), and could go for 20 levels without needing any charisma (just take invocations that don't have saves). And the warlocks who used charisma could just as well be using their force of personality to channel the raw fiendish energy running through them. Nothing indicates that they sat down and negotiated with the fiends, with the most charming and persuasive of them getting the better deal.
It seems far more likely to me that the unknown entity chooses the witch based on magical talent (intelligence), and sends a familiar as a conduit to school him/her in the arcane arts, than the witch negotiating for power. Especially because, according to the SRD: “As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic, but some remain blissfully unaware.”, which seems to indicate pretty strongly that the witch doesn't go about demanding extra power in exchange for their services, but rather take the power offered without regard for the price.
Erato wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Whereas others are mono-maniacally focused on the narrow cone of Charisma not being the only factor in making or getting the better (or worse) of a deal. I'm more curious about why a Witch has be about getting the better deal. Clerics serve a god and channel their power, and it is their faith and ability to connect with with said god (i.e. wisdom) which determines their power. Most likely because gods are more interested in dedicated and skilled representatives than they are in getting their butts kissed. And why shouldn't the unknown entities that empower witches feel similarly?
The 3.5 warlock, which shares a lot of flavour with the witch, made pacts with fiends (or fey), and could go for 20 levels without needing any charisma (just take invocations that don't have saves). And the warlocks who used charisma could just as well be using their force of personality to channel the raw fiendish energy running through them. Nothing indicates that they sat down and negotiated with the fiends, with the most charming and persuasive of them getting the better deal.
It seems far more likely to me that the unknown entity chooses the witch based on magical talent (intelligence), and sends a familiar as a conduit to school him/her in the arcane arts, than the witch negotiating for power. Especially because, according to the SRD: “As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic, but some remain blissfully unaware.”, which seems to indicate pretty strongly that the witch doesn't go about demanding extra power in exchange for their services, but rather take the power offered without regard for the price. Charisma isn't ability to kiss butt.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men.
Erato wrote: It seems far more likely to me that the unknown entity chooses the witch based on magical talent (intelligence) There's no RAW connection between magical talent and the intelligence score.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Charisma isn't ability to kiss butt.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Butt kissing would probably be a function of diplomacy, which does make it fall under the umbrella of charisma.
Quote: People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men. o_O
I'm not even sure where to start...
Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes.
Okay, what in the heck are these supposed example supposed to prove? I mean seriously, how do you know who has and hasn't made deals with the giant flying spaghetti monster. I feel like we're about one step away from this...
Johnnie Cochran wrote: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests I mean in a reality where there were powerful beings that wanted to influence the world, wouldn't the attributes of the people they chose reflect what they they were trying to accomplish? And that is of course assuming that these beings are getting pick of the litter, that they're the ones getting to make the choice in the first place, that they weren't called upon themselves, or weren't simply just stuck with the person for any number of reasons.
J. Cayne wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
Charisma isn't ability to kiss butt.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Butt kissing would probably be a function of diplomacy, which does make it fall under the umbrella of charisma.
Quote: People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men. o_O
I'm not even sure where to start...
Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes.
Okay, what in the heck are these supposed example supposed to prove? I mean seriously, how do you know who has and hasn't made deals with the giant flying spaghetti monster. I feel like we're about one step away from this...
Johnnie Cochran wrote: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room ... We're talking about beings capable of granting people - quite a lot of people - the ability to *cast* Wish daily. These beings are not weak and insignificant. They are major power players in the campaign world - not as powerful as full blown gods, but certainly more powerful than just about anything else I can think of in the game.
And if we're not going to discuss the kinds of people that represent high int and high charisma, then there's no basis for discussing whether these beings would prefer, in general, characters with high int or high charisma to grant these incredible powers to. That is to say, there's no basis for saying that these beings should prefer high int characters (the kinds of characters that they do, in fact, prefer) - that the rules as they currently stand are entirely arbitrary.
LilithsThrall wrote: People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men. If gods are more interested people with high wisdom than high charisma, why should the unknown entities be interested in charisma? If anything, witches should use wisdom. I personally don't think it has as much to do with the personal preferences of the deity/entity (that would be alignment and overall personality) as it has to do with talent. People with high wisdom are better at making a connection to the divine, and people with high intelligence are better students of the arcane.
Whether these unknown entities would be mainly interested in charismatic people or not, it would depend on what they're using them for. If my theory (which has just as much basis as yours) is correct, they would want people with a talent for arcane magic first and foremost. But even if that isn't the case, all talents can be useful. People without a certain amount of strength would have a hard time affecting a barbarian tribe whose leadership was decided by hand-to-hand combat. A society of scholars would probably not respect someone without the needed intelligence.
As for the people you mentioned, I don't know half of them (not being American), but a lot of people consider George Bush more of a figurehead, and Dick Cheney as the one who really called the shots. Schemers don't need personal magnetism, they need the ability to calculate. If you'd ever read A Song of Ice and Fire, think Cersei Lannister (headstrong, beautiful, persuasive, intent of gathering power, but still ending up a pawn most of the time) vs. some of the real schemers in the books, who're often not the people who leave the biggest impression but who still manage to think their way out of trouble and arrange the circumstances to fall out in their favour.
And finally, since the description of the witch says that most of them don't even know about the power that chose them, could we agree that it's not very likely for a negotiation to have taken place?
LilithsThrall wrote: There's no RAW connection between magical talent and the intelligence score. There's also no RAW connection between witches and charisma. But looking at the classes, people who're born with innate magic (sorcerers) use charisma and people whose talent allows them to study magic in order to master it (wizards) use intelligence. If you're going to initiate a follower into the mysteries of the arcane, you want to make sure that follower is actually able to grasp it.
Just for my two cents I don't like Sorcerers. I find them limiting and most of the bloodlines have nothing to do with gaining more caster abilities. They get you claws instead. Yay.
Also I would point to the 10 or so archetypes for wizards besides just being specialized. There's a lot of diveresity in there and somethings a sorcerer just won't even come close to (Gun wizard, anyone?)
Oh. Wizards ARE limited daily by the spells they can cast. They ALSO come with scribe scroll for free. Never played a wizard who couldn't cast magic missle all dungeon long.
EDIT: Wizard is also, I think, one of the harder classes to actually manage at a table for the pc. A fighter has to think about his sword(s), a rogue about his lockpicks. The wizard has this silly book he has to haul around and constantly refer to and make notes in. The sorcerer? He just points his finger at things and they go boom.
LilithsThrall wrote: And if we're not going to discuss the kinds of people that represent high int and high charisma, then there's no basis for discussing whether these beings would prefer, in general, characters with high int or high charisma to grant these incredible powers to. That is to say, there's no basis for saying that these beings should prefer high int characters (the kinds of characters that they do, in fact, prefer) - that the rules as they currently stand are entirely arbitrary. All well and good, but I would dearly love to see the explanation of how you came to the conclusion that 4 out of 5 otherworldly beings prefer George W. Bush to Dick Cheney. I mean, what could you possibly be basing this on, and how does it actually prove you point? Literally all you did was make a list of people and then arbitrarily declared it somehow proved your point with not on jot logic or argument to bridge between the two.
Please explain how non-existent otherworldly beings prefer George W. Bush to Dick Cheney, and how you come to know this secret knowledge. They are your examples after all, so this should be no problem.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LilithsThrall wrote: Erato wrote: It seems far more likely to me that the unknown entity chooses the witch based on magical talent (intelligence) There's no RAW connection between magical talent and the intelligence score.
APG wrote: To learn or cast a spell, a witch <b>must</b> have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I love sorcerers. They point at stuff and it goes boom.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matthew Morris wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Erato wrote: It seems far more likely to me that the unknown entity chooses the witch based on magical talent (intelligence) There's no RAW connection between magical talent and the intelligence score.
APG wrote: To learn or cast a spell, a witch <b>must</b> have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Yes, thank you. Now, how does that establish a RAW connection between magical talent and intelligence? For example, do Sorcerers have magical talent? (answer: yes) Are Sorcerers dependent on intelligence to cast magic? (answer: no)
It's frustrating to me because it seems all too obvious that sorcerers are crystal clear arguement of how there is no RAW connection between magical talent and intelligence. Did you really not notice that?
It's not. Mental strength is a trait of magical talent. However, intelligence is the connection to wizard and witch talent (as well as psion talent), wisdom is druids, clerics, and rangers (and psychic warriors), and charisma is sorcerers and oracles (and wilders).
The fact of the matter is Intelligence is what witches are based on. Frankly, nothing outside of Intelligence matters for the witch's magic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ashiel wrote: It's not. Mental strength is a trait of magical talent. However, intelligence is the connection to wizard and witch talent (as well as psion talent), wisdom is druids, clerics, and rangers (and psychic warriors), and charisma is sorcerers and oracles (and wilders).
The fact of the matter is Intelligence is what witches are based on. Frankly, nothing outside of Intelligence matters for the witch's magic.
But one of the things we've been discussing is whether a witch's magic should be based on intelligence. Pointing out what the witch's magic -is- based on doesn't advance anything. The only way the connection between magic talent and intelligence would be relevant to this discussion is if that relationship was the general case.
Oh, my apologies. I must have missed that. I suppose there would be no harm in creating a witch variant that used Charisma or Wisdom to make them more sorcerer or druid-like, as opposed to a hedge-wizard.
Again, my apologies for misunderstanding.
Ashiel wrote: Oh, my apologies. I must have missed that. I suppose there would be no harm in creating a witch variant that used Charisma or Wisdom to make them more sorcerer or druid-like, as opposed to a hedge-wizard.
Again, my apologies for misunderstanding.
I can see a maiden (charisma)/mother(?)/crone(wisdom) trifecta of archetypes
LilithsThrall wrote: Ashiel wrote: Oh, my apologies. I must have missed that. I suppose there would be no harm in creating a witch variant that used Charisma or Wisdom to make them more sorcerer or druid-like, as opposed to a hedge-wizard.
Again, my apologies for misunderstanding.
I can see a maiden (charisma)/mother(?)/crone(wisdom) trifecta of archetypes As far as I know, many GMs have already houseruled this. I allow maiden (charisma), mother (wisdom), crone (intelligence).
LilithsThrall wrote: I can see a maiden (charisma)/mother(?)/crone(wisdom) trifecta of archetypes I must have really misinterpreted your posts, because until this I thought you were arguing how charisma should be the primary score for all witches.
LilithsThrall wrote: I can see a maiden (charisma)/mother(?)/crone(wisdom) trifecta of archetypes I've always favored this approach to witches. And just to complete the trifecta, I would base the mother archetype off of intelligence.
Jason Ellis 350 wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: I can see a maiden (charisma)/mother(?)/crone(wisdom) trifecta of archetypes I must have really misinterpreted your posts, because until this I thought you were arguing how charisma should be the primary score for all witches. I've pointed out that using intelligence for pact making doesn't make sense. On the other hand, archetypes should be able to go beyond what makes sense and focus on what is fun. Some people will find an int based witch more fun regardless of how much sense it makes.
LilithsThrall wrote: Yes, thank you. Now, how does that establish a RAW connection between magical talent and intelligence? For example, do Sorcerers have magical talent? (answer: yes) Are Sorcerers dependent on intelligence to cast magic? (answer: no)
It's frustrating to me because it seems all too obvious that sorcerers are crystal clear arguement of how there is no RAW connection between magical talent and intelligence. Did you really not notice that?
You're welcome.
Actually it shows there is a connection between magical talent and intelligence. There may also be a connection between magical talent and Wisdom (clerics) and magical talent and Charisma (Bards).
I'm just saying that your 'there's no RAW link between magical talent and Intelligence' is easily proved laughably wrong, since, Rules As Written, there is a clear link between intelligence and a witch's casting.
No matter what the rules say though, you'e going to bend over backwards in order to find some Deus ex Machina justification for the Witch's spellcasting to be charisma based instead of intelligence. That's fine.
LilithsThrall wrote: I've pointed out that using intelligence for pact making doesn't make sense. If the pact doesn't include negotiation, it makes as much sense as anything else. And since the SRD specifically says that witches are likely to not even know the source of their power, it's not likely that any negotiation took place, meaning that no diplomacy or bluff was necessary. The only skill witches really need is spellcraft, which is based on intelligence, since it's used to learn extra spells.
Looking at the way the witch casts spells, intelligence is also what makes most sense. The witch doesn't create a connection to the divine (wisdom), and doesn't have inborn, intuitive magic which s/he can call upon without preparing it in advance (charisma). Instead, witches study each say to prepare their spells in advance, like a wizard, with a familiar sent to “reveal to her secrets unknown to most mortals”, to quote the SRD. The designers could have gone with another form of spellcasting for the same concept, but they didn't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
STR Ranger wrote: I love sorcerers. They point at stuff and it goes boom. Exactly....with none of those tedious and expensive spell components.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
